being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

[maynardg]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

I think the latter can't cost you money.

117 posts in 2 days....

So, what's worse, obsessing over cables and power cords and their super obvious impact on sound quality, or obsessing over how senseless it is to obsess over cables and power cords and their super obvious impact on sound quality?

[mzisserson]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

As long as they aren't there spreading it as truth more power to them. One of the main tenants of a forum like PETT is to stop people from drinking the kool-aid.

This place is full of Kool Aid my friend.... It is just a flavor everyone likes, so everyone drinks it. The greatest flavor: If it has not been scientifically proven to date bay a handful of individuals, it must be false. Weather that is a poor assessment of a driver, cables, cabinet construction methods, whatever.... It is funy though how when a breakthrough is made, everyone here is the first to complain it is too expensive, then when it is cheap enough it is the best thing that has ever existed. There is no false information, only ignorance. To ignore the FACT that power factor effects components. There is A LOT of data available on cable and the effect of impedance mismatches and/or signal transfer though wire. Music is also a complex signal, not square, or single frequency sine waves. The issue is is wile there are some companies who have been doing good testing and providing data, it "cannot" be good data because no one wants it to be. It's easier to complain and charge castles with torches and pitchforks than to understand. Come to work with me for a day. The development of passive electronics, even ones used for low frequency in precision applications, needs to account for inductive effects of the leads since lower order harmonics WILL creep into the lower KHz range. The detail put into the geometry of the parts of components is almost as critical as hitting the component value itself. I find it very entertaining people cal it "misinformation", when it is in fact their own ignorance to learn the complexities of actual complex signal transfer. Has nothing to do with cost of anything, just information. Look at the advancements in driver design since The Kippel... Prior there were many hypothesis that were proven true. Complaining something is not worth a certain dollar amount is just hot air. Value is defined by the user. What makes it even more sad for me is many of the people I respect in this place really sound dumb when they post in these threads. It does no one any good.... Including me.

[craigk]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

"This place is full of Kool Aid my friend.... It is just a flavor everyone likes, so everyone drinks it." The greatest flavor: If it has not been scientifically proven to date bay a handful of individuals, it must be false." this is a very interesting comment, let me see: theory of gravity, theory of wave particle duality, uncertainty principle, theory of general relativity, special relativity theory, string theory, quantum theory, with all these scientifically unproved things I just don't how we make it. what an amazing statement you made. it explains a lot.

[r-carpenter]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

[jinjuku]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

This place is full of Kool Aid my friend.... It is just a flavor everyone likes, so everyone drinks it. The greatest flavor: If it has not been scientifically proven to date bay a handful of individuals, it must be false. Weather that is a poor assessment of a driver, cables, cabinet construction methods, whatever.... It is funy though how when a breakthrough is made, everyone here is the first to complain it is too expensive, then when it is cheap enough it is the best thing that has ever existed. There is no false information, only ignorance. To ignore the FACT that power factor effects components. There is A LOT of data available on cable and the effect of impedance mismatches and/or signal transfer though wire. Music is also a complex signal, not square, or single frequency sine waves. The issue is is wile there are some companies who have been doing good testing and providing data, it "cannot" be good data because no one wants it to be. It's easier to complain and charge castles with torches and pitchforks than to understand. Come to work with me for a day. The development of passive electronics, even ones used for low frequency in precision applications, needs to account for inductive effects of the leads since lower order harmonics WILL creep into the lower KHz range. The detail put into the geometry of the parts of components is almost as critical as hitting the component value itself. I find it very entertaining people cal it "misinformation", when it is in fact their own ignorance to learn the complexities of actual complex signal transfer. Has nothing to do with cost of anything, just information. Look at the advancements in driver design since The Kippel... Prior there were many hypothesis that were proven true. Complaining something is not worth a certain dollar amount is just hot air. Value is defined by the user. What makes it even more sad for me is many of the people I respect in this place really sound dumb when they post in these threads. It does no one any good.... Including me.

I'll let you in on a secret. When you find yourself sitting at the poker table and you can't spot the chump...

[Pete Schumacher]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

"This place is full of Kool Aid my friend.... It is just a flavor everyone likes, so everyone drinks it." The greatest flavor: If it has not been scientifically proven to date bay a handful of individuals, it must be false." this is a very interesting comment, let me see: theory of gravity, theory of wave particle duality, uncertainty principle, theory of general relativity, special relativity theory, string theory, quantum theory, with all these scientifically unproved things I just don't how we make it. what an amazing statement you made. it explains a lot.

So you agree with Mike then.

None of those things you mentioned are proven, yet almost everyone accepts them as the current paradigm of understanding.

One of the flavors that Mike might be referring to is the "polars are all that matter in how something sounds" argument. Polars are NOT all that matter, but just try and say something can sound good without first showing them a full set of polar plots, as if their eyes had eardrums. It's one thing to produce a study where people preferred speakers with better polar response, it's another to infer that without the better polars, it's impossible to produce a speaker people will like.

But when it comes to wires . . . well.

[Mark65]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

Gravity is a law, not a theory. Last I heard, anyway. Has it been downgraded somehow?


Mark

[OlderMongrel]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

I would rather spend $2600 on $600 worth of drivers and $2000 on Brazilian hookers then power cords, but as I said - to each their own. He has a pretty nice system, though.

Aren't those the brackets you can hang your surround speakers on, that will cause a magnificent improvement in SQ?

John

[craigk]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

sorry your wrong, gravity gas never been a law, always a theory

[Pete Schumacher]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

sorry your wrong, gravity gas never been a law, always a theory

Gravity is a law. Masses attract. That's not a theory.

The theory is explaining how this happens.

Electricity isn't a theory. Neither is plasma. Attempting to explain what they are requires a theory.

[mzisserson]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42539[/ATTACH]

Roman, I would eat that. I bet I would fart rainbows afterward and shi* ice cream!

So you agree with Mike then.

None of those things you mentioned are proven, yet almost everyone accepts them as the current paradigm of understanding.

One of the flavors that Mike might be referring to is the "polars are all that matter in how something sounds" argument. Polars are NOT all that matter, but just try and say something can sound good without first showing them a full set of polar plots, as if their eyes had eardrums. It's one thing to produce a study where people preferred speakers with better polar response, it's another to infer that without the better polars, it's impossible to produce a speaker people will like.

But when it comes to wires . . . well.

Pete,
Humor me. Please provide the evidence I have ever made those statements. I have said some pretty dumb things in my time here, but I do not believe I have ever said either of those two. I have stated that people are so desperate to hold onto the paradigm that the world is flat that they are willing to increase the complexity of their designs 10 fold to achieve it instead of just designing smart from the beginning. Polars are important, as are on axis response, spatially averaged responses, merged responses, CSDs, distortion, and several others that are combinations/methods of the aforementioned measurements. There is no one measurement that is king...They are just a tools in the toolkit. Yes, I believe that even power response is preferred by most in a typical home environment. Horns have their place, typically its not in a living room. A vast majority of speakers do not utilize waveguides, only a handful do and only a handful of those are renowned. If that is not enough proof, don't know what is. Taking a 60+ year old technology and putting your spin on it does not make it "new". Though Bose did patent there "acoustic wave
' that way... cooling something up are we?

As far as Craig agreeing with me... I am unsure he was not being somewhat toung-in-cheek. There is a lot of data out there. I am done with the days of spending hours providing links to the readings. I did my homework, if people do not want to do theirs and spew internet venom, that is fine by me. I do believe I have also made my stance here fairly clear: There is no need to spend thousands on cables, and there are many companies out there who are playing off of snake oils and quasi-truths. That is a separate issue than do cables matter. Because they do. Anyone who has taken a basic AC theory class would know why. Here's the thing: If you have an ULTRA low distortion, ULTRA high rez and very capable system, minute differences begin to be precieved as large differences. If you have spent thousands on gear and cables and the cable that sounds best in your system is a $50 pair of patch cords, that is because they play nice. Sometimes the $2000/pr may play the best, the fact that these differences can be noticeable is not because the end user is dumb, it is because the properties of that cable effect the transmission between components. The real issue is in the determinate of value is there are not established standards as to justify this. So it is all "VooDoo", which again, it is not if you take ten min. to research a little. Really, the people that can afford esoteric cables are at an advantage because they have a larger playing field to get all the little details of their system right, not because they have a giant pit to throw their money in. Weather or not they know what they are doing again, not the real debate.

[Pete Schumacher]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

Pete,
Humor me. Please provide the evidence I have ever made those statements. I have said some pretty dumb things in my time here, but I do not believe I have ever said either of those two. I have stated that people are so desperate to hold onto the paradigm that the world is flat that they are willing to increase the complexity of their designs 10 fold to achieve it instead of just designing smart from the beginning. Polars are important, as are on axis response, spatially averaged responses, merged responses, CSDs, distortion, and several others that are combinations/methods of the aforementioned measurements. There is no one measurement that is king...They are just a tools in the toolkit. Yes, I believe that even power response is preferred by most in a typical home environment. Horns have their place, typically its not in a living room. A vast majority of speakers do not utilize waveguides, only a handful do and only a handful of those are renowned. If that is not enough proof, don't know what is. Taking a 60+ year old technology and putting your spin on it does not make it "new". Though Bose did patent there "acoustic wave
' that way... cooling something up are we?

First Mike, take a deep breath.

I didn't say you said those things. Read carefully what I wrote and how I wrote it. One of the flavors that Mike talked about MIGHT be the "polars are all that matter" . . . I was bringing in MY thoughts on a subject that I think gets blown out of proportion in the grand scheme. My point, if you read what I wrote carefully, is that you can achieve a nice sounding speaker even if you violate the "polars are everything" stance, because the sound of a speaker is more than a polar plot. Polars aren't even the most important part in how a speaker sounds.

So relax, and have some of that pony rigatoni. ;)

[craigk]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

there is no such thing as a law of gravity. there is Newton's law of gravitational force. this is not a law of gravity, period, and the theory is not explaining how it works. plasma does not need a theory to be explained, here is a very simple explanation of plasma and plasma states, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics). electric can also be explained. electricity is also quite easy to explain. plasma and electric fall under number 5 below.

the·o·ry [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA


noun, plural the·o·ries.

1.

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.


2.

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.


3.

Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.


4.

the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.


5.

a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

[nikkoluvr]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

http://www.legacyaudio.com/products/view/signature-se/

Is it just me, or are the woofers in those Signature SE speakers a Dayton Audio RS series woofer?"7" Rohacell reinforced-Silver Graphite, cast frame" Cool! this sounds so much cooler than the regular description of what's in my Core speakers.

so, is "Rohacell reinforced-Silver Graphite" another name for Aluminum then? Who would have known.

nikkoluvr

never mind - those are RS270's. I should just go to bed.

[johnnyrichards]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

Gravity as a concept is a tautology, same as evolution. To dispute gravity - whether "proven" or not, it an idiots choice. The same with evolution.

A theory is just that - a theory. Fortunately for us, scientific theory is held to slightly more rigorous standards than the theory that a pleated diaphragm makes a ribbon tweeter capable of delivering aural orgasms. It is *unfortunate* that science has chosen the word "theory" to describe concepts which are very nearly proven beyond not only a reasonable doubt, but proven to the point that to deny is an idiots choice - since the word "theory" is so often tied up with stupid conspiracies, radical pseudo-science, and other such non-sense - almost always keyed to individuals who refute mainstream science possessing overwhelming data.

We all have our little pet "theories" that we believe science cannot or will not explain. Does not make it right, not does it make us exempt from specific and targeted questioning on our pet theories.

Glad my only theory on loudspeakers is that most of us would fail miserably at identifying, blind, the crap we all profess to enjoy the most. A long history of subjective sensory input experiments implies audiophiles or science deniers would fare particularly poorly. Just a theory, though